The court of appeals decision usually will be the last word in a case,unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
Appeals are decided by panels of three judges working together. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in writing, in a document called a "brief." In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that its decision should be reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the "appellee," tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any error made by the trial court was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.
Although some cases are decided on the basis of written briefs alone, " many" cases are selected for an "oral argument" before the court . Oral argument in the court of appeals is a structured discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges focusing on the legal principles in dispute. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present arguments to the court.
The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.
A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal. When the Supreme Court hears a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court may hear oral argument.
144001 And after all that grief you gave Cedars for inaccurate information .........
"Oral arguments are allowed by a subtantial majority of California courts (some demand written arguments only - it's up to the judge to set the policy for his/her courtroom), and no special permission is needed for this. It's oral evidence that is generally not allowed unless the court gives special permission, as occurred here. In other words, it's ok for lawyers to argue the motion, but the court wants any substantive evidence that is presented by the lawyers to be in written form, not oral testimony.
The WTBTS claims that the witness will be a representative of the WTBTS q ualified to speak about the past and present history of Patterson, its appraised value, and the WTBTS' future plans for Patterson.
As for Simons, there would be no reason for him to introduce oral testimony. His argument is a legal one that does not require the introduction of any evidence whatsoever. He is simply arguing that the law does not allow the substitution that the WTBTS is requesting, or the reduction in the bond amount. Based on some very limited research I did on Simons claims, it appears that his argument is a good one.
Nevertheless, there's no need for anyone to be concerned about this issue. Even if the court grants the WTBTS' motion, Conti's judgment will be more than adequately collateralized. No matter how the court rules, Conti will not collect anything until she either settles with the WTBTS or the appeal and this case is resolved in one way or another, so this is not a huge issue for Conti, as it will neither help nor hinder her in collecting her judgment.
Edited to add: One more point, to clarify the situation, Simons will indeed be presenting oral argument in court tomorrow. But he will not be seeking to introduce any oral testimony by witnesses, as the argument he will be making does not require the introduction of any evidence at all."
